Craig Whitmore wrote:
test3.spam.co.nz
you give recursive but redirect: is not a valid mechanisum
so should permerror with this error
Yes, the "redirect:" is wrong.
test4.spam.co.nz on kitterman's passes? is this correct?
IMO yes, a parser never sees a sytactically valid "redirect="
if there's an "all". The bogus "redirect=" could trigger a
warning, but no syntax error.
test5.spam.co.nz it is an invalid netmask
/0 is valid is some protocols, for SPF I've to check what went
into the RFC (in draft -02 it was okay)... got it, still okay:
ip4-cidr-length = "/" 1*DIGIT
To make it more interesting try 1.1.1.1/0000 :-) Stuart,
Julian, Scott, and another implementor started to create a new
test suite on the spf.devel list, these /0 (or similar) cases
could be added.
Where can I find the most recent YML ? With some examples it
should be simple to add such ip4-cidr-length cases, /0 should
work, ditto leading 0 as in /032, for nonsense like /033 I'd
have to read the prose, maybe there's a MUST NOT somewhere.
Frank
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com